Disposed

Ritesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Sept 2020WPS/3161/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought annual increment denied after one year of service. Court directed respondents to verify factual similarity with similarly placed persons granted benefits under prior orders and grant appropriate steps.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to verify factual similarity with similarly placed persons and allow petitioner fresh representation if applicable within 3 months.

Ritesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 3161 of 2020

¶5

Ritesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Arun Kumar Sharma Aged About 44 Years Assistant Grade - I I I, Government Girls H. S. School, Pachpedi, Block Masturi, Bilaspur - 495001

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Naya Raipur - 492002 Chhattisgarh

¶9

The District Education Officer, Bilaspur District, Bilaspur - 495001 Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. A.G.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order

¶13

04.09.2020

¶14

1. The grievance of the petitioner is non granting of annual increment on completion of one year service from the initial date of appointment.

¶15

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 841/2010 and WPS No.844/2010 which were disposed of on 24.02.2011, the State Govt. has extended the benefit to similarly placed persons Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State authorities are extending the benefits only to those persons who

¶16

¶17

are getting the order from the High Court and not otherwise.

¶18

3. State counsel, at this juncture, submits that subject to verification of facts whether the claim of the petitioner is identical in nature to the said similarly placed persons who have been granted the benefits in the very same department, the petition of the petitioner can be disposed.

¶19

4. Given the aforesaid statement made by the counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, rather ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to verify the factual contents as stated in the preceding paragraphs and also verify whether identically placed persons have been extended the benefit or not and take appropriate steps so far as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner would be at liberty to make fresh representation to the respondents 2 & 3.

¶20

5. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶24

Vishakha

Ritesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj Kumar Arya Vs Satish Kumar Pandey

Smt. Laxmi Devi @ Laxmi Verma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Archana @ Seema Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kriparam Koliyare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrikant Shukla, Vs Smt. Fariha Alam Siddique

Chandrajeet Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh